9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Member The aforesaid appeals by the assessee are against two separate orders of learned CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Ys 2009-10 and 2011-12. 2. When the appeals were called for hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee inspite of hearing notice issued by the Registry through registered post. On the previous occasion also when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 1,37,29,960/- for A.Y. 2009-10. For A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee filed his return of income on 23.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 96,68,780/-. As was the case in A.Y. 2009-10, in A.Y. 2011-12 also the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 30,95,365/- claimed against interest income from fixed deposit and made addition of Rs. 2,12,436/- on account of notional income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years under appeal. 4. The learned DR relied upon the observations of the departmental authorities. 5. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been rejected by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings. Thus, as could be seen from the facts on record, under a bona fide belief that interest expenditure incurred on the overdraft facility is allowable against the interest income earned by investing the funds borrowed from the overdraft account assessee has claimed the expenditure. This, in our view, neither leads to furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, on over all consideration of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts of the present appeals is not justified. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years under appeal. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
